Question regarding school day out.

dieselhead

This is just one in a string of threads about, school trips, charity days etc, and I think its really sad. I know this is a money saving site, and we all try hard, and sometimes the answer to a child really is no. What I fail to understand though is why if these things can be afforded even with a little sacrifice, especially in the case above why can the child not have the reward. Children cost money, we all know that, I just can't understand why a parent would begrudge a treat.

bonty44

Gingham_Ribbon wrote: »

In other words, teachers can do no right so they might as well not bother.

Well said Gingham Ribbon. We can't do right for wrong.

wishicouldmakeitbetter

As a teacher, I have to disagree with some of the posts here. I think that if the school is rewarding the children that it should not ask parents to pay. If the school cannot afford the stated activity then they should have arranged something that they could have afforded. Good children are generally very grateful for any little break in routine and even a day spent doing something fun in school ( particularly if they come in mufti) would have made them feel appreciated.:T

Saving_spree

I wonder why it is called a Reward in the 1st place, when you have to pay a price for it.

Lunar_Eclipse

Saving_spree wrote: »

I wonder why it is called a Reward in the 1st place, when you have to pay a price for it.

Because price doesn't necessarily come into it. The OP found a dictionary definition of a treat as being: To provide with food, entertainment, or gifts at one's own expense or to give (someone or oneself) something pleasurable.

So finally we now know that this can be called a treat, going by one of the two interpretations of the word. Thankfully the author of the school's letter knew their English, since ultimately this debate comes down to vocabulary skills as well as personal opinion.:rotfl:

aliasojo

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

Because price doesn't necessarily come into it. The OP found a dictionary definition of a treat as being: To provide with food, entertainment, or gifts at one's own expense or to give (someone or oneself) something pleasurable.

So finally we now know that this can be called a treat, going by one of the two interpretations of the word. Thankfully the author of the school's letter knew their English, since ultimately this debate comes down to vocabulary skills as well as personal opinion.:rotfl:

Sorry Lunar, don't agree at all.

'Give' doesn't not involve cost. You cannot 'give' something pleasureable if the something pleasureable costs the recipient. It's a basic contradiction in terms.

Lunar_Eclipse

aliasojo wrote: »

Sorry Lunar, don't agree at all.

'Give' doesn't not involve cost. You cannot 'give' something pleasureable if the something pleasureable costs the recipient. It's a basic contradiction in terms.

You don't agree with me, or the OP's dictionary I quoted?;)

I agree that 'giving' is normally done freely, without cost, but having now turned to the dictionary myself (Oxford), I see that this doesn't have to be the case.

Or maybe it's interpretation.

Either way, I still think it could be a treat, depending on the child's view.

Reggie_Rebel

Seems to me your choices are:

1 - Pay up and shut up (£120 for a trip to France?)
2 - Don't pay up, don't send the child
3 - Turn your indignation about the unfairness of it all into a positive and offer to pay for any kids that can't afford it, probably no need to extend this offer for the trip to France or the Rugby

aliasojo

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

You don't agree with me, or the OP's dictionary I quoted?;)

I don't agree with your interpretation.

aliasojo

Reggie_Rebel wrote: »

.....................and offer to pay for any kids that can't afford it........

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Is that really a viable option?

I love this place, it makes me laugh.